M SARATHKUMAR Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICE RECRUITMENT; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT; INSPECTOR OF POLICE KEDAR POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an aspirant for selection and appointment to the post of Police Constable, Grade-II with the first respondent Board. The petitioner has come out successfully in the written examination conducted by the respondents and he was also provisionally selected for medical examination for being recruitted in the Armed Reserve Police in Tamil Nadu. On 21.08.2012, the petitioner attended the certificate verification, physical measurement test etc., and all the testimonials produced by him have been verified. While the petitioner was anticipating to get selected to the post of Police Constable Grade-II, the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2012, rejected his candidature on the ground that he had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case at the time of applying for the post.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is bad and it is not legally sustainable. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to mention about the petty case in which he involved and paid a fine of Rs.200/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and the respondents ought not to have relied on the same to reject his candidature. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 4 MadLJ 1006 wherein it was held that the minor indiscretions committed by the youth should be condoned instead of branding them as criminals for the rest of their life by depriving them employment opportunity.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case in which the petitioner involved himself is one under Gambling Act. The case in Crime No. 277 of 2011 was filed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gambling Act and it ended in payment of fine by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram in S.T.C. No. 2669 of 2011. Therefore, such a minor offence committed by the petitioner need not be put against him to deny him employment opportunity. The petitioner did not deliberately suppress the information sought for by the respondent and the omission to indicate the criminal case is only an inadvertence. Merely because the petitioner suppressed the criminal case, that by itself should not be taken by the respondents to deny him employment opportunity.